I have been motivating myself to analyze the murky half-assertions reported gaily by the media that during his tenure as the CEO of the National Restaurant Association, Herman Cain was charged with sexual harassment by two female employees (apparently a third had some concerns, but chose not to file a grievance). The two female employees received settlements from the organization without the restaurant association admitting wrongdoing, and Mr. Cain was not a signatory to the agreements. It is even unclear how much he knew about the settlements. No criminal or civil charges were filed and the documents are not a part of the public record.
These charges occurred in a context in which some women claim to find the Obama White House to be an uncomfortable work environment, although these charges as well seem uncertain and not well-documented. Sexually charged work conditions seem to be non-partisan as do ambiguously second-hand claims.
When the news broke about the charges raised about Herman Cain's leadership style, this appeared to be a rich vein to discuss the role of reputation and scandal in politics. The fact that the charges were aimed at a candidate who appealed to cultural conservatives made them more piquant. But as the days have dragged by the information that has been revealed has been nothing short of nothing short. We hear the phrase "sexual harassment" and "hostile work environment" repeated endlessly, but we have no accusers ready to stand up and make specific charges against a man - a black man - who wishes to become President of the United States, and is, in some polls, tied in support with President Obama and perhaps is the most popular Republican candidate.
Yet, the charges still elude us. Were these blue jokes that were unappreciated or were they physical attacks? Are we discussing admiring compliments or coarse assessments of bodily assets? Are these dinner invitations or demands for massages in a locked hotel room? The information is not available, and fantasies run wild. And until the information is presented in a way that can be countered or admitted, it is hard to give them the credence that they might - or might not - deserve. To be sure those women "who go public" will be the subject of speculation, gossip, and malicious attack, and it is easy to understand why they might wish to avoid such public notice.
Informal talk in politics and in business is often savory. Sociologists note that certain work domains are what we term "obscenity factories." These are workplaces in which cursing and sexual talk is considered legitimate and even expected. Such work environments include not only working class spaces, such as police stations or factory lines or restaurant kitchens, but can be hospital emergency rooms or the boiler rooms of political campaigns. Such spicy discourse is absent in other domains with schools and universities first among them. What we do not know in the Herman Cain case is whether the talk was a kind of rough joshing, teasing, or an ongoing form of assault. As for the definition of what these actions mean, a lot depends on the person to whom they were addressed. The man who propositions a woman who accepts the offer is not considered guilty of harassment, but he might be if she says no after several invitations. In other words, sexual harassment is known after the fact: it is judged in the rearview mirror.
As a category of action, sexual harassment sounds bad, and it often is. This is not a pattern of action that should be taken lightly. The problem is that the term covers such a wide range of potential actions with some much graver than others. It is like child abuse which sounds appalling, but which might include either spankings or whippings. The labels cover too much when there is not a record of behavior.
So I find myself with some sympathy for the accusers and also for the accused. We well appreciate why these women, who obviously felt uncomfortable, changing their careers, would not wish to face the bright, klieg lights of public scrutiny, having their endowments scrutinized by millions of strangers to judge Mr. Cain's taste. They like many of us might have defects, mistakes, and moles that they reasonably wish to keep out of national view. On the other hand, it is hard for a public figure to keep swinging at ghosts and to box innuendos. And that is where Herman Cain finds himself. In law there is something called a Scottish Verdict (based on Scots jurisprudence) and sometimes the "bastard verdict," "not proven." The NRA paid these women a settlement, perhaps in the form of severance, to make the problem disappear, but that is not in itself a form of proof. Today the public has not been provided sufficient information to determine where justice lies, or who lies with justice. And perhaps we should not know.
At this point we should turn our backs from what might - or might not - be a high-tech lynching. Tomorrow is, as it always is, a new day, and information wishes to be free.
